I am of the firm belief that the closer an event is to you the more emotionally involved you get.

I think this is true, and I think that the killings in Norway, the media coverage thereof, and the discussion these killings have engendered here underline a fairly simple fact about human psychology.

In his book On Killing, Dave Grossman discusses the factors that enable soldiers to kill in battle. Killing is not easy for most people--even in battle, where their lives depend on their willingness and ability to kill. This problem became especially acute during the World Wars, when most soldiers on both sides were essentially civilians in uniform. Before these men could kill, they needed to be enabled--by social sanction, by the demands of authority figures like officers, by group absolution (and the diffusion of responsibility that being part of a group provides). But one of the most important factors that Grossman identifies is simply: distance. The farther away you are from someone--the harder it is to see their faces, and the fainter their cries of fear and pain--the easier they will be to kill.

This distance is sometimes physical. It's much easier to bomb people from the air than it is to stab them at close quarters. And it's much easier to stab or shoot someone in the back than it is to do it to their faces. Physical distance can also be provided by mechanical means--by the operation of a crew-served weapon, for example. Or by the remote operation of a drone, which is rather like playing a video game.

But psychological distance is just as important, if not more important, than physical distance. This psychological distance can be increased by many factors: racial differences, ethnic differences, class diference, ideological differences, and moral difference. It's much easier to kill someone if their skin is a different colour, if their facial features are different, if they speak a different language and wear different clothing, and if we're convinced that they're somehow bad people. The more I learn about Breivik's motives, the clearer it becomes just how much psychological distance he had put between himself and his fellow Norwegians.

So the greater the distance, the less the distress people feel when they kill, or even when they see someone killed. And the reverse is also true: the lesser the distance, the greater the distress. The more we identify with someone else, the more likely we are to feel their pain. And the closer they are, the more intensely we feel it. Charities understand this: thats why they show people pictures of starving children on television--to bring their suffering right into our living rooms.

It's true that, objectively speaking, there is really no diference between the murders in Oslo and similar murders that go on in other parts of the world every day. Seventy-six deaths would pass practically unnoticed in the Congo, which for years has been the scene of what some people have called "Africa's First World War". But an objective viewpoint does not come naturally to most people. An objective viewpoint is the view from nowhere--and everyone views the world from somewhere. In fact, I would argue that most people who think they are viewing these things "objectively" are really just viewing them from a greater psychological and emotional distance than others. Nothing matters if it's far enough away.

The Western media, by contrast, has been devoting a great deal of attention to these killings because they know that Western people are closer to the victims of this massacre than they are to victims of similar massacres elsewhere--culturally, psychologically, ethnically, even physically in some cases. They've calculated that this incident will draw viewers, because to people in the West, the Norwegians are "us," while the Congolese (for example) are "them." They're concentrating on Norway for the same reason they concentrate on Missing White Women, instead of car accidents or shootings in the ghetto. And we only have to review this thread, and the strong reactions of some people therein, to see that they've calculated correctly.

What's more, I'm not convinced that there's anything inconsistent or hypocritical about either a strong reaction to this tragedy, or the absence of such a strong reaction. This is just the way we're wired as human beings: to care about those who are close, and to not care about those who are distant. Some people feel close to those who were killed in Norway, and others don't. And there's very little sense in demanding that people should feel differently, either way. You're certainly not going to change their minds by arguing with them over the internet.

Breaking your heart over everyone who dies would be just as unnatural as being unmoved by the deaths of your nearest and dearest. Let people feel their feelings--or not feel them, as the case may be. Whether or not they should feel differently is a topic for another time. But always be aware that other people are aware of these psychological facts, and will seek to exploit either your emotional involvement or your indifference for their own purposes and their own gain.

Edited by Goliath (07/26/1112:20 AM)

_________________________
An illusion--with intelligence! A malignant vision, with a will of pure evil!

Since it now appears that most of those killed or injured were teenagers or older, then had some of those youngsters at the youth camp been armed - as for example the Hitler Youth often were - and had they been trained in the use of firearms (again as the Hitler Youth were) and had those youths possessed a more fighting spirit (been tough, as the HY and the Bund Deutscher Mädel in der Hitler-Jugend were taught to be) then it might have been the case that the attacker would have been shot dead before he had the chance to kill many people.

Thus, the tragedy would have been much less.

If this reasoning is sound, then instead of people - as they are now - talking about stricter 'gun controls', they should be talking about making weapons and weapon training more readily available and allowing people to carry firearms or lethal weapons in public, as most people did, for centuries, before modern governments decided they wanted more controls, more restrictions, as governments always seem to.

Had the killer been shot dead in such a way, it would perhaps have been natural justice and might even have served as a better deterrent than a trial and imprisonment.

A few years ago a guy named Martin Bryant went berserk and shot a whole lot of people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

That was a shock to a lot of people here and it immediately raised a debate regarding gun ownership and making weapons more available or less available to people.

The outcome of that debate was to remove guns, to reduce and get rid of them through buy-back schemes and legislation etc.

That approach seems to have worked up to this point, as we have not had another incident like that again.

I know the U.S constitutionally protects the rights of its citizens to bear arms and I have nothing against that, as that seems to be the consensus; and there are other countries who have a similar sort of ethos as well I think.

In Australia's case, this reduction of weapons appears to have worked. I am not sure what Norway's culture is like, but from what I understand they want to introduce even more democracy over there as a result of this tragedy, which may just work for them.

Severe gun control does not make guns harder to obtain. There are black markets everywhere and if people desire them, they can get them. Gun control only affects the price range on the black market.

I live in a country with rather strict gun control laws but at the same time I live in a country where about everything is available, ranging from hand-weapons to automatics like AK-74s.

In Europe, the idea gun control solves anything is a delusion.

The main problem on that island, and to his advantage, is the "flight" reflex. Logically one guy with two weapons can't win against 500, even when having no firearms, but human nature takes over and instead of facing the danger and doing the sacrifice, it's each on his own. Completely understandable but logically the worst reaction possible.

I am of the firm belief that the closer an event is to you the more emotionally involved you get.

I think this is true, and I think that the killings in Norway, the media coverage thereof, and the discussion these killings have engendered here underline a fairly simple fact about human psychology.

In his book On Killing, Dave Grossman discusses the factors that enable soldiers to kill in battle. Killing is not easy for most people--even in battle, where their lives depend on their willingness and ability to kill. This problem became especially acute during the World Wars, when most soldiers on both sides were essentially civilians in uniform. Before these men could kill, they needed to be enabled--by social sanction, by the demands of authority figures like officers, by group absolution (and the diffusion of responsibility that being part of a group provides). But one of the most important factors that Grossman identifies is simply: distance. The farther away you are from someone--the harder it is to see their faces, and the fainter their cries of fear and pain--the easier they will be to kill.

This distance is sometimes physical. It's much easier to bomb people from the air than it is to stab them at close quarters. And it's much easier to stab or shoot someone in the back than it is to do it to their faces. Physical distance can also be provided by mechanical means--by the operation of a crew-served weapon, for example. Or by the remote operation of a drone, which is rather like playing a video game.

But psychological distance is just as important, if not more important, than physical distance. This psychological distance can be increased by many factors: racial differences, ethnic differences, class diference, ideological differences, and moral difference. It's much easier to kill someone if their skin is a different colour, if their facial features are different, if they speak a different language and wear different clothing, and if we're convinced that they're somehow bad people. The more I learn about Breivik's motives, the clearer it becomes just how much psychological distance he had put between himself and his fellow Norwegians.

So the greater the distance, the less the distress people feel when they kill, or even when they see someone killed. And the reverse is also true: the lesser the distance, the greater the distress. The more we identify with someone else, the more likely we are to feel their pain. And the closer they are, the more intensely we feel it. Charities understand this: thats why they show people pictures of starving children on television--to bring their suffering right into our living rooms.

It's true that, objectively speaking, there is really no diference between the murders in Oslo and similar murders that go on in other parts of the world every day. Seventy-six deaths would pass practically unnoticed in the Congo, which for years has been the scene of what some people have called "Africa's First World War". But an objective viewpoint does not come naturally to most people. An objective viewpoint is the view from nowhere--and everyone views the world from somewhere. In fact, I would argue that most people who think they are viewing these things "objectively" are really just viewing them from a greater psychological and emotional distance than others. Nothing matters if it's far enough away.

The Western media, by contrast, has been devoting a great deal of attention to these killings because they know that Western people are closer to the victims of this massacre than they are to victims of similar massacres elsewhere--culturally, psychologically, ethnically, even physically in some cases. They've calculated that this incident will draw viewers, because to people in the West, the Norwegians are "us," while the Congolese (for example) are "them." They're concentrating on Norway for the same reason they concentrate on Missing White Women, instead of car accidents or shootings in the ghetto. And we only have to review this thread, and the strong reactions of some people therein, to see that they've calculated correctly.

What's more, I'm not convinced that there's anything inconsistent or hypocritical about either a strong reaction to this tragedy, or the absence of such a strong reaction. This is just the way we're wired as human beings: to care about those who are close, and to not care about those who are distant. Some people feel close to those who were killed in Norway, and others don't. And there's very little sense in demanding that people should feel differently, either way. You're certainly not going to change their minds by arguing with them over the internet.

Breaking your heart over everyone who dies would be just as unnatural as being unmoved by the deaths of your nearest and dearest. Let people feel their feelings--or not feel them, as the case may be. Whether or not they should feel differently is a topic for another time. But always be aware that other people are aware of these psychological facts, and will seek to exploit either your emotional involvement or your indifference for their own purposes and their own gain.

There is a calamitous error. A "normal person" does not even want to kill, correct? They have no idea what they are talking about when dealing with violence, as they can only observe and react to its presence as something other than their first priority in life. A psychopath prefers to visit violence face to face and would consider killing impersonally, for example, a nail bombing, as "just one of those things", a fleeting piece of information.

Black market talk is bullshit. Have you ever tried buying a weapon from it?Here's the thing — in countries with strict gun control, yes, there are guns in the hands of criminals. But they're usually not gonna sell them to an outsider. Too much risk. If you're able to find a gun dealer, police would certainly be able to find him too. Usually it's police trap.

nexion17: Arming teenagers is certainly not a good idea. Only a psycho would go on and prepare for an attack like this. On the other hand quite a lot of people would be able to kill someone else in a conflict with a firearm. Often not on purpose.

Also no punishment for that guy would work as a deterrent for other people like that. They're so crazy that they simply don't care.

Not really. They operate like any other market once risk is taken into account. Granted, I have no experience buying AK's, but I have puhlenty of experience being the white dude in the car hittin' 2nd&P with a rack o' bros scopin' some green. The hustlers always marked me as a "jump out," but the deal would always get done (well, except for that one time when we were hit by real jump outs).

Point being, added risk means you have to prove your demand in a black market. It's all about connects. And you build those by being cool. In my youth, I scored a bag of some chronic shit from some dudes in a "foreign territory" just by chillin' right with some other dude at a bar. The deal was done before the Zombies hit me, but then I was smoked up, pocketed up, and trying to drive back to a motel in a blizzard . . . the Zombies eventually hit me (true story).

I've never wanted a gun, as I prefer other types of weapons. But even if I couldn't buy a firearm from a legal source, I have no doubt that I could navigate "the underworld" and procure one.

Since it now appears that most of those killed or injured were teenagers or older, then had some of those youngsters at the youth camp been armed - as for example the Hitler Youth often were - and had they been trained in the use of firearms (again as the Hitler Youth were) and had those youths possessed a more fighting spirit (been tough, as the HY and the Bund Deutscher Mädel in der Hitler-Jugend were taught to be) then it might have been the case that the attacker would have been shot dead before he had the chance to kill many people.

Thus, the tragedy would have been much less.

If this reasoning is sound, then instead of people - as they are now - talking about stricter 'gun controls', they should be talking about making weapons and weapon training more readily available and allowing people to carry firearms or lethal weapons in public, as most people did, for centuries, before modern governments decided they wanted more controls, more restrictions, as governments always seem to.

Had the killer been shot dead in such a way, it would perhaps have been natural justice and might even have served as a better deterrent than a trial and imprisonment.

While the killer might have been stopped if someone on the island had a gun and knew how to use it we cant forget that more guns in circulation also means more guns in the hands of instable people.

So some of the 70+ people in Norway might be alive if the country had no gun control but what would the numbers be in gun related deaths if more people had access to them?

I do believe that gun control is a good thing. I understand the argument from people wanting their rights to own a gun but living in a country where guns are uncommon I see more value in not having many guns around me rather than having the right to carry a gun to protect me from other who also have a gun.

King is right, obtaining weapons is just a matter of knowing where to seek. In your local environment, either go into the narc-network, bikers or radicals. Of course if you're Joe Average it won't be easy to frequent these environments or gain trust but if you're used to living in the real world, it is not that hard.

Down here there is a steady import of hardware from Eastern Europe and it's continuously on the market. Many go to the homeland on vacation with their family and bring some hardware back. That pays for the vacation.

If one can score dope in their environment, they can score weapons. The trades tend to go hand in hand.

What many people here are forgetting is that one does not need a gun to cause havoc. What would have prevented this from happening is not gun control it's idiot control which as we all know is sadly impossible.

Diavolo's giving information towards that very goal of idiot control. There's no instant answer. There's no need to be so negative and hopeless, Captain Norway wasn't an idiot, he was just a very sad and pathetic man, we can blame this that and the other for what made him like it but stuff with that kind of psychology happens in childhood. It's how WE raise and value children, they grow up in the end then they are us.

What many people here are forgetting is that one does not need a gun to cause havoc. What would have prevented this from happening is not gun control it's idiot control which as we all know is sadly impossible.

Interestingly enough, over the past few months I had been pondering why there weren't more "terrorist attacks" in the world, given the proliferation of radically violent rhetoric and the ease by which weapons can be obtained. If there are so many Jihadists and extreme anti-Westerners seeking martyrdom, then it wouldn't make sense to rely on fragile and costly operations involving homebrew explosives and hijacked planes. What's there to stop a covert Jihadist from picking up a gun and simply opening fire on a crowd?

So called "anti-terrorism" campaigns focus predominantly on 9/11 or Madrid style attacks, looking for signs of secret networks involving dozens of people, who construct complicated plans requiring a network of materials and various destructive components. It is ironic, then, that the most damage done in this particular atrocity was not from the fertilizer explosives or elaborate conspiracy, but from a simple, cold-hearted slaughter involving requiring nothing more than a couple automatic weapons and a single pair cold-blooded hands pulling the trigger.

It can be a foreboding prospect, to realize that there is almost nothing to prevent such "lone wolf" attacks.

While the killer might have been stopped if someone on the island had a gun and knew how to use it we cant forget that more guns in circulation also means more guns in the hands of instable people.

If we operate under the assumption that most people aren't psychotic assholes who just want to kill people (as I believe is the case) then more guns means more guns in the hands of "good" people. In a world where everyone was packing heat, someone would think twice about trying to use theirs against another person.

Aside from the obvious advantage guns provide, there is also the intimidation factor: I have one, you do not, I win. But, if I have one and you have one as well then the odds are a little more evened out. So I think more people with guns is a good thing.

Gun control doesn't work. Period. Guns exist and they are not going anywhere.